Verizon Uses Your Forum Complaints Against Cablevision

That letter was nicely written. If Cablevision is really the best, customers will not want to leave. Cablevision needs to seriously improve their IO Television experience to keep customers around. They raise prices every single year, yet they only add a handful of channels - none of which anyone cares about, and navigating the service with their terrible equipment is just painful.

Even without MSG/MSG+ HD, Verizon still blows them away when it comes to numbers of channels they offer, and the quality to which they offer them.

The sports programming is only the tip of the ice burg compared to the other reasons why customers will be leaving once FIOS is more widely available. -- Not only that, but Cablevision is being very agressive in keeping customers from leaving. Sign up for FIOS and then call to cancel Cablevision. Users who have done that have reported getting some really sweet deals from Cablevision.. - Free Boost service for a year, free DVR for a year, triple play promotion extended to two years (total of 3), etc.

And VZ has raised rates several times on their TV offerings as well. TelcoTV is no better than CableCo TV

Hey, while you're down there, can you kiss my butt too?

Let's get real here. Cablevision has one of the most valuable footprints in the country, and the best penetration of their footprint out of any cable company. They've been constantly growing that penetration for years. For every customer they lose, they get almost 1.5 -2 back. So of course Verizon is going to snipe at them. Cablevision snipes at them as well. Its called competition.

You want cable companies to share their TV networks? How about you share your fiber network so competitors may enter the market. I can get twenty flavors of DSL but only one fiber connection.

In some markets FiOS is open resellers. They are just not mandated to do so,or to do it at a reduced rate.

Where? Please provide links.

DSL Extreme is now offering fiber over the FIOS network.

»DSL Extreme Launches Rebranded FiOS [50] comments

A quick Google search brought up DSL Extreme as a FiOS reseller.

ooooo One reseller... Big Deal!

It's a very big deal. Clearly Verizon is allowing resellers access, which is much more than we can say for AT&T and U-Verse.

Reseller, not resellers.

No, there are resellers. One is just very shy.

It is a very wise move on VZ's part - shields them from anti-trust crusaders (despite the fact they were given a monopoly per FCC, that won't stop pols from making headlines...). Its also a good business decision - shows they're not afraid of wholesale competition.

Lets hope that VZ continues to be smart, and offer lower-cost/lower-rate FIOS, is sensible when considering caps, and fixes their billing problems.

I hope Frontier is a FIOS TV reseller or former FIOS customers may be screwed.
MF

My position here.. On the reselling argument, I don't see cable companies having competitors riding over their networks..

On the argument of VZ FIOS being a monopoly.. As long as there is at least 1 competitor out there, ie: cable, maybe sat too, then VZ FIOS does not have a monopoly.

On the DSL Extreme route, I don't think its a good thing for VZ to have offered up. What if they change their mind later, is DSL Extreme just going to gracefully back down and hand over all their subs to VZ as FIOS customers? I'm not sure why they elected to go this route.

It is a big deal because Verizon isn't mandated to do it. It's pretty clear from reading the articles about it that they'll offer it for resale from other ISPs, too. DSL Extreme was simply the first to take them up on it.

quote:

---

ooooo One reseller... Big Deal!

---

How many resellers does Buckeye Cable have for its service? 1 is better than none.

Buckeye is not a phone company.

Doesn't matter, they should open their network. Verizon is not under any requirement to share it FIOS network, but it has chosen to do so. When cable astroturfers whine about their only being 1 CLEC who can offer services over FIOS they should look at how open their network is/is not to CLECs/Competitors.

Exactly! Hypocrisy comes to the mind so slowly for some....

Oh and also we are not talking about sharing infrastructure. IT is about making programming available.
1 more. Why isn't CV forced to open thier network to resellers?

Because they are a cable company, not a phone company.

How is that different? CableCo and TeleCo are basically the same thing today.

The phone company was the beneficiary of many Government subsidies that helped them gain the stronghold they have today.

The cable company largely had to build their network on their own, and in many cases had to "pay to play" via concessions in the franchise agreements.

The FiOS network was built out by Verizon money, and not government money, though.

What does one have to do with the other?

It's about exclusivity.

Cablevision owns the MSG channel. Verizon owns the FiOS network.

They each have decided to control where those products can be seen - i.e. MSG can be seen only on cable, not on FiOS, and Verizon doesn't open up the FiOS network to competitors as widely as they are mandated to do with the copper network.

Because they are NOT REQUIRED TO... get a grip dude.. This fiber deployment is insainly expensive.. Why give it away to mom an pop who have done NOTHING.

Sharing channels and sharing networks are two different things.
Cablevision has not spent 50billion dollars on msgHD.

but they spent money on the Network they own. Cablevision is just like any other Network. They decide who gets the network and at what price. The same with ESPN and Scripps TV.

The amount of money is irrelevant.

Cablevision developed a product and should be free to sell it to whoever it chooses to. Consumers always have a choice to get MSG HD, and that is to subscribe to Cable.

While we are at it we should mandate that all store owners open up their shops for other people looking to sell goods and services.

Your outta line here... This Fiber network is 100% built and paid for by verizon... You others to offer fiber .... Let them do the dirty work then .

Moderator Action
This entire topic was removed, either temporarily, or permanently.

stated reason was: Off topic

I guess the intricacies of the contracts are lost to me, but it seems that if this channel is so valuable, it should be priced accordingly. Why can't Cablevision simply find a price point for this channel that would greatly improve their own business while significantly damaging the overall business of any competitor wishing to pay for it?

Unfortunately for Verizon FiOS subscribers the management at Cablevision has the right to restrict access to their exclusive programming.

We must wait to see if Verizon can Lobby (Pay Off) sufficient government officials, to pass rules or laws seizing Cablevisions exclusive right to determine who carries their programming. To be fair such a rule or law should include the right for other ISP's, access to Verizon's FiOS Network but I would not hold my breath!

MSG should on Verizon as a premium channel. Cablevision does not offer any Verizon channels because they dont offer them. I would have a problem without MSG.

I think this is good for DSLReports/BroadbandReports and the industry. This system has always been a clearing house for information both to and from consumers. I'm not sure I'd be spanking Verizon or anyone else for using it as such.

Robb

Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service to potential customers. Why can't Cablevision?

But verizon is national Cablevision is only on the east coast.

Maybe CV should worry more about fixing the teams that are on MSG vs holding back the HD feed...not including the rangers or devils this year but the knicks aint worth HD anyways. laugh peeps ok.

Also maybe CV should put up or shutup. They tout via commercials as being such a great tv service and also being the only option for all HD sports in NYC area. If they feel there "tv network" is so great then lets see a head to head competition......open MSG HDandMSG+ HD to Fios and lets see who comes out on top in the end Network to Network.

But the "schmolans wont do that cause they r to scared to be "real men with gonads"

Cablevision is refusing to sell MSG/MSG+ HD to a competitor, but Cablevision has gone on an all out assault against the NFL Network because the NFL licensed Sunday Ticket exclusively to DirecTV and will not sell it to anyone else. Dolan has said he will not carry NFL Network unless he can get Sunday Ticket.

So Cablevision is complaining about being crapped on by the NFL and won't carry their programming because of it, while engaging in the same practice RE: FIOS and U-verse competition. I guess it's OK for Cablevision to strong-arm for competition, but not FIOS, or DirecTV?

Looks like Time Warner Cable offers MSG HD so what gives Cablevision the right not to offer it to Verizon? The channel is not exclusive to Cablevision, they are choosing which providers they want to sell it to. To me it sounds like discrimination. Please tell me if I'm missing something here.

Verizon should have made noise about closing the "terrestrial loophole" YEARS ago.

»They don't need a REASON to increase prices!

let' see.. millions of listeners lose howard stern to sirius satellite radio.. days later.. an exclusive daily bittorrent feed pops up.. go figure..

do you actually think ONE cable-tv channel's content is what is the difference between paying a cable subscription to one company vs the other? doesn't matter if it's MSG, YES network, or WWE plethora of venue channels including ppv.. it can't be worth $5+ a month for this show or that show per channel.

not that I advocate piracy.. no, of course not (chuckles) but that's not going to stop even non tech savvy consumers from voting with their dollars to the better ISP network for better value. when will you stop focusing on video content and realise much content will be poached over the internet and there isn't a whole lot either industry can do to stop it (without screwing everybody in the process). So does that mean content producers stop making content? I guess we'll just wait and see..

I think that the logic of some of this sites readers is crazy. Verizon is asking the government to enforce fair competition in the cable markets plain and simple. The idea of competition is to provide better service and keep the rates for service lower than in non competitive markets. Verizon is not asking for MSG HD for free they are willing to pay market price. Cablevision is refusing simply to be anti-competitive. So by some of the poster's logic should Verizon pull the plug on the fiber optic cables feeding the Cablevision buildings that transmit video signals, of course not because then Verizon would be anti-competitive. Cablevision pays Verizon the market price for the fiber optics.

Its funny how Verizon for years, at least here in New England bitched about open access. Which took away from Cable's market share..Force the cable companies to open the very networks that they spent millions of dollars on to build from the ground up to the likes of AOL, Earthlink, Netzero and dozens more... But when they are asked to open their very own Fios and or copper networks the defenders of MA-Bell cry fowl...Cablevision has every right to protect their property..If what you say is true..The the government needs to kill the exclusive contract between the NFL and Direct TV..(crying) It's just not fair that a particular channel or service that's available to one but not the other...boo hoo...One should not be forced to give or sell a product that is exclusive to them or a subsidiary of said company..I'm tired of hearing this FAIRNESS rule...We all seem to have this entitlement attitude in this country..Suck it up folks...If Cablevision needs to share the wealth then shouldn't Verizon..allow more internet providers to piggyback fios for a means of taking market share from Verizon...fair is fair..right people...And don't separate tv/telco/internet either..they all come from both companies above in the discussion..

What in the world are you talking about? Verizon is piggy-backing on cable's backbone? Huh? Gee, I thought Verizon built, you know, it's OWN network. As for services like AOL and Earthlink 'sharing' cable's system... again, huh?! They're doing no such thing. Earthlink doesn't just walk in and piggy-back on cable's backbone. Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

Next, while I'm not wild about exclusive carry contracts (NFL ST on DirecTV), this is NOT the same thing at all. The fact that many don't see this really gets me... the issue isn't whether one channel provider can have an exclusive carry arrangement. They can, and do (e.g. CV's exclusive carry deal of MSNBC). The issue is: what happens when the channel is OWNED by pay TV service provider? THAT'S the issue. If MSG wasn't owned by CV, and they signed an exclusive carry agreement with CV this thread would be a nonstarter - there would be no issue for the FCC to look into.

But because CV OWNS MSG HD... that's another issue entirely. The FCC has regulations in effect to handle JUST this kind of arrangement. That's a real concern, because, with all the mergers between distribution companies and content providers that happened through the late 90's, you could easily have content wars between providers. Imagine DirecTV (when they were owned by News Corp) not allowing anyone else to have access to the Fox suite of channels... no FNC, FBC, F/X, Fox Reality, FMC, FSC,... etc. I'm sure cable subscribers would have been just fine with that arrangement... right?

CV has been playing games - no one is asking for special treatment against CV... Verizon is just asking that CV adhere to the same rules that govern all other TV service providers.

Finally, finally - look at my other post. Verizon, and all phone companies, are REQUIRED, per the 1996 telecommunications act, to share their copper networks. That's why you can get AT&T phone service even if your network is managed by Verizon. Funny... should they do the same with cable? Hmm... if you're talking about making things fair, wouldn't it be 'fair' to have CV open up its copper network to Verizon VoIP service?

my feelings on this..
do you think at&t liked it when they were divested in 1984, they stood the same ground cablevision is standing today over content.

when the baby bells wanted to get into offering internet using DSL, they had to lease out elements in their network including the wires to the home.

also, its real convenient too that cable companies offer features that were telco originated such as call id, call waiting & voicemail. I thought telcos at least partially created this technology & had a patent on its technology but you don't see them arguing, cv you cant use it.

when this content was up for grabs, telcos, who did have interests in video well before cv grabbed the garden but weren't allowed into the video foray or they may have bid for it.

if cv holds msg-hd & it doesn't offer it for at least a reasonable rate/customer, then they should be considered as having a monopolistic hold on content.

In fact, the example is in the actual headline above -- it was already considered wrong from cable companies to have an exclusive agreement with apartment buildings, just as well, it should also then be considered wrong for cable companies to have an exclusive lock on content.

cable companies are fully allowed into the telco foray including their full line of features and cable should have to open they content they hold at full quality for some kind of reasonable price.